A window for a purpose: Developing a framework for describing effective science teaching and learning

Research in Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 273-298

  Tytler, Russell ^a  

^a DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Change models; Effective teaching; Science learning; Science teaching; Teacher change; Teacher development

Indexed keywords

EID: 1242272382     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025423704068     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study - The PEEL project. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
2. Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
3. Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
4. Brunkhorst, B. J. (1992). A study of student outcomes and teacher characteristics in exemplary middle and junior high school science programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 571-583.
5. Clarke, D. (2000, December). The practice of researching practice: Inevitable reflexivities. Keynote paper presented at the symposium Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Health, Environmental and Science Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
6. Clarke, D. (2001, December). Teaching/learning. In D. Clarke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (Chapter 12, pp. 291-320). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Cruikshank, D. R. (1986). Profile of effective teacher. Educational Horizons, 64(2), 80-86.
8. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
9. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
10. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science - from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3-25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). Science content and constructivist views of learning and teaching. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science. London: Falmer.
12. Fraser, B., & Treagust, D. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15(1-2), 37-57.
13. Gallagher, J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71, 535-555.
14. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: Macmillan.
15. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
16. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (1999). Understanding scientific evidence. Retrieved December 2002 from http://www.dur.ac.uk/~ded0www/ evidence_main1.htm
17. Gough, A., & Sharpley, B. (2002, April). Science with a difference and a twist - stories of primary students' environmental science interest and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, USA.
18. Gough, A., Marshall, A., Matthews, R., Milne, G., Tytler, R., & White, G. (1998). Science baseline survey. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.
19. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
20. Hameyer, U., van den Akker, J., Anderson, R. D., & Ekholm, M. (1995). Portraits of productive schools. An international study of institutionalising activity-based practices in elementary science. Albany, New York: SUNY.
21. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers' understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93-105.
22. Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research. Using Research Series, 21. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education. ERIC Reproductive Service ED 431 772.
23. Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1-41.
24. Luke, A., Elkins, J., Weir, K., Land, R., Carrington, V., Dole, S. et al. (2003). Beyond the Middle: A report about literacy and numeracy development of target group students in the middle years of schooling. Brisbane, QLD: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved April 2003 from http://www.gu.edu.au/school/ cls/clearinghouse/.
25. Mitchell, I. (2000). PEEL in practice: 650 ideas for quality teaching. Melbourne, VIC: Monash University CD.
26. Murphy, P., & Davidson, M. (2002, April). Exploring the characteristics of effective teaching and learning: A study of primary science classrooms. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of NARST, New Orleans.
27. Murphy, P., Davidson, M., Qualter, A., Simon, S., & Watt, D. (2001). Effective practice in primary science. Report of an exploratory study funded by the Nuffield Curriculum Projects Centre. London: Nuffield Foundation.
28. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
29. Penick, J., & Yager, J. (1983). The search for excellence in science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 621-623.
30. Sanford, J. (1987). Management of science classroom tasks and effects on students' learning opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 249-265.
31. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
32. SIS Project Team. (2002). The science in schools research project: Report of phase 2. Melbourne, Vic: Deakin University Consultancy and Development Unit.
33. SIS Project Team. (2003). The Science in schools research project: Report of phase 3. Melbourne, Vic: Deakin University Consultancy and Development Unit.
34. Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501-520.
35. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. (1987). Target students in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61-75.
36. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1988). Investigations of exemplary practice in high school science and mathematics. Australian Journal of Education, 32(1), 75-94.
37. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary teacher? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 3-25.
38. Treagust, D. F. (1991). A case study of two exemplary biology teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 329-342.
39. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (in press). From 'try it and see' to strategic exploration: Characterising young children's scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
40. Tytler, R. (2001). Describing and supporting effective science teaching and learning in Australian schools - validation issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v2_issue2.
41. Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (2002). Talking to effective teachers of primary science. Investigating, 18(4), 11-15.
42. Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (in press). Windows into practice: Constructing effective science teaching and learning within a systemic reform project. International Journal of Science Education.
43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577-586.
46. Yager, R., & Penick, J. (1984). What students say about science teaching and science teachers. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 143-152.
47. Yager, R., Hidayat, E., & Penick, J. (1988). Features which separate least effective from most effective science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(3), 165-177.